Everyone doesn't end up with brain damage.
Most NFL players only play for a few seasons. The average career is only three seasons; the median is even lower. An exceptionally small number of players are going to suffer brain damage in two or three seasons.
Today's NFL players are paid far beyond extraordinarily well, they don't need the money. The bulk of the claims are coming from players in the past that were not paid so well and do need the money. Guys that used to play for $100,000 /yr across a ten year career, and played at a time when the NFL was far more violent and head protection was even worse.
A player that lasts 10-15 years in the NFL today will typically earn $100 million or more. They'll have a lot of money and some will have lasting brain damage. A very small fraction of those players will ever consider suing the NFL.
> I assume the NFL will end up bankrupt from civil claims?
That's an incorrect assumption. The legal cost will barely be a drop in the bucket of the NFL's financial machinery.
Someone else mentioned the $500m concussion fund was burned through sooner than expected. $50m-$100m per year is an easy problem for the NFL these days. The commissioner gets paid $40 million per year. League revenue was $16 billion in 2019. One team, the Dallas Cowboys, alone has $280 million in operating income. If you cycle out ten more years, the NFL could afford $500 million every single year in liability costs related to head injuries, and it would still be fine (and that number isn't going to happen).
A large portion of collegiate players will end up with CTE. Enough high school players end up with CTE that we should be concerned.
https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2017/evidence-of-cte-fo...
Of the 12 linebackers on the depth chart of that team that year, 5 were dead by 2020, all before the age of 50, with diagnosed or suspected CTE (and only one of them had gone on to play in the NFL).
They don't earn money and they do suffer injuries all the time.
I doubt that will happen again but you can imagine a similar set of rule changes to help with brain health. I suspect the NFL will need to drive that as I don’t see a Teddy Roosevelt line public figure these days.
But things like reducing the number of players on the field, making periods shorter, increasing time between games (or reducing games per season), and putting playtime caps (at least at lower levels) would statistically reduce risk without making things unrecognizable.
Alternatively, Atari predicted robot football by next 2022 [1], with additional updates in 2072.
[1] https://www.arcade-museum.com/game_detail.php?game_id=7469
I actually worry much more about line play than most given the evidence that suggests constant low level head collisions are as dangerous as limited high impact hits for things like cte.
You could imagine mandating standing positions at the line, a wider scrimmage line and mandatory shotgun snaps as rule changes that would limit the constant head collisions linemen take. Just as a for instance.
For a dramatic change you could imagine weight limits like in sprint football.
A blow to the QBs head is a 15 yard penalty and automatic 1st down.
Spearing is a personal foul, 15 yard penalty, automatic 1st down IIRC.
I'm sure there are others...
An example of a more systemic change would be elimination of any head-to-head impacts that might occur between defense and offensive linemen on any given play.
How do you work to eliminate those without changing the game into something unrecognizable?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-pro-wrestlers-dying...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/comparing-the-wwfs-deat...
What business is it to anyone else, least of all the government?
Being your brother's keeper doesn't mean getting an IRS agent and some agent with a gun to force someone who didn't consent to someone else playing football/rugby to pay for their injury. Being brother's keeper doesn't mean removing consent.
I think what you should really be arguing for is the rugby association to properly compensate anyone with medical disability as a result of their employment.
High school and youth players are neither paid nor are they old enough to consent.
Collegiate players are old enough to consent, but aren't paid (excluding tuition/room/board).
Regardless of the sums of money, do we as a society, really want to allow people to allow themselves to become brain damaged in exchange for money? If not, we need to decide where we draw the line.
>You're only thinking about the NFL.
The article was literally about professional rugby players. Yes I realize most of those guys are not making millions.
>High school and youth players are neither paid nor are they old enough to consent.
Which is why I said those who consent, who are you arguing against? My statement was "Person A consents." If you believe a minor cannot consent then by definition we haven't spoken about high school and youth.
As an aside, do you believe all sex amongst 17 year olds is rape as well, since you are not attributing them the ability to consent?
Or maybe you really believe it is in the governments interest to clearly define what consensual conduct is allowed. Just curious, but do you check with government interests before agreeing to a certain sex position with a partner? After all, it is the government's business; they should really probably know. I hope you also seek government definition of your conduct of pissing in a bush next time you're out in the public woods (make sure the contract of your public use of lands isn't ill defined).
The idea contract law makes what voluntary consensual conduct you do the business of government is a hilarious and gross misinterpretation of the the utility of contract law.
If you live in libertarian la la land, then sure, both sides should be able to come to a consensual agreement without government interference. But in the real world, there are actual, real limits to what you can put in a contract that will stand up in court.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law
>If you live in libertarian la la land, then sure, both sides should be able to come to a consensual agreement without government interference
Yes and currently people still come to "illegal" consensual agreements like in the drug trade. When they're unable to seek peaceful intervention through the courts, they're forced instead to engage in violence and vigilante justice. That sounds much better to you, huh?
It's not just libertarians that have an interest in government butting out of these sorts of agreements. For instance, pot shops (run by all kind of folks) have trouble entering any sort of banking relationship due to asinine federal drug laws. Or if you're into certain alternative health ideas, you'll find you're completely unable to come to an agreement with a farmer across state lines for obtaining unpasteurized raw milk. Hope you've never purchased from a child's unlicensed lemonade stand either.
Anecdotally, I remember a couple of my high school classmates seemed perceptibly affected by their repeated concussions in varsity football, and would discuss at the lunch table how to throw the “impact” test at the start of the year so they would still be allowed to play after a serious hit. The test compared your score after injury to your score at the start of the year, so theoretically if you do badly enough on round 1 you can still pass with a “mild” concussion.
Anecdotally, more than 1 engineering student has killed themself, affected by their repeated challenges in engineering school, and has discussed their challenges at the lunch table about how to throw back a "drink" at the start of the night so they could still allow themselves to continue after a serious reprimand by their PI.
--------------
NFL primarily sources from collegiate football, not high school. In fact, there is a strict rule a player must be 3 year out of high school before being drafted. If you have a problem with the way collegiate football recruits children, perhaps it is best to start there.